To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legosOpen lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Robotics / RCX / legOS / 2613
2612  |  2614
Subject: 
Re: bug in setting lnp host address?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos
Date: 
Wed, 5 Jun 2002 01:04:07 GMT
Viewed: 
2021 times
  
you'll probably hate me for being a nitpicker....

I will parameterize this shift-value based on the CONF_LNP_HOSTMASK
definition. Unless others object strenuously, I prefer to leave this
interface using small valued numbers.


technically, you should not do any bitshifting at all.  There is always the
odd case when someone decides to be clever and have a hostmask with
interleaved zeros.  for example, a hostmask of 10101010 (0xAA), while
confusing, is still a valid hostmask.  If that host is listening on port
01010101, and someone sends a message addressed to 11111111, then that host
should pick it up and direct the message to the right port.  In this case,
bitshifting will never work.

This is also why I would like to see the addressing scheme finalized.  I
think it would make more sense to have a series of address-only bits
followed by a series of port-only bits.  Unless anybody wants to
significantly change LNP, I think it would make sense to settle on 4 bits
for the host and 4 for the port, as this is what most people are using right
now and is most likely adequate for the future, unless someone plans on
throwing a big legOS LNP festival...

cheers,
albert



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: bug in setting lnp host address?
 
And, you'll probably hate my reply... "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should." The very idea of a discontinuous array of bits representing a network address in something as rudimentary as LNP makes my hair stand on end. The idea (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: bug in setting lnp host address?
 
You are correct in stating that I shouldn't have restricted you to 16 nodes X 16 ports. I did however, want to normalize the host address in the visible API and user interfaces to be a small 0..N number instead of a random hex byte value, properly (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)

6 Messages in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR